CPU
GPU
GeForce GTX 295
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 460M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce GTX 295 is positioned at rank 301 and the GeForce GTX 460M is on rank 181, so the GeForce GTX 460M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 295
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 460M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 460M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.7% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GTX 295 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 295 | GeForce GTX 460M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2009 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+16.7%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 460M offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 460M holds the technical lead. Priced at $40 (vs $50), it costs 20% less, resulting in a 27.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 295 | GeForce GTX 460M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+27.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) | ✅More affordable ($40) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 295 and GeForce GTX 460M
GeForce GTX 295
The GeForce GTX 295 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 8 2009. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 576 MHz. It has 480 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 289W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,198 points. Launch price was $500.
GeForce GTX 460M
The GeForce GTX 460M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 3 2010. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 675 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,218 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 295 scores 1,198 and the GeForce GTX 460M reaches 1,218 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 295 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 460M uses Fermi, both on 55 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 480 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 192 (GeForce GTX 460M). Raw compute: 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 0.5184 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 460M).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | GeForce GTX 460M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,198 | 1,218+2% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Fermi |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 480 ×2+150% | 192 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2+15% | 0.5184 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 28 ×2+17% | 24 |
| TMUs | 80 ×2+150% | 32 |
| L2 Cache | 224 KB | 384 KB+71% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | GeForce GTX 460M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 295 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 460M has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 295 offers 16.7% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 224 KB (GeForce GTX 295) vs 384 KB (GeForce GTX 460M) — the GeForce GTX 460M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | GeForce GTX 460M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1.75 GB+17% | 1.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 224 KB | 384 KB+71% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTX 295) vs 12 (11_0) (GeForce GTX 460M). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | GeForce GTX 460M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_0)+8% |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6+39% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: PureVideo HD VP2 (GeForce GTX 295) vs PureVideo HD VP4 (GeForce GTX 460M). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP2 vs PureVideo HD VP4. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 295) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 ASP (GeForce GTX 460M).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | GeForce GTX 460M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | PureVideo HD VP2 | PureVideo HD VP4 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP2 | PureVideo HD VP4 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 ASP |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 295 draws 289W versus the GeForce GTX 460M's 50W — a 141% difference. The GeForce GTX 460M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 680W (GeForce GTX 295) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 460M). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs 1x 6-pin. Typical load temperature: 95°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | GeForce GTX 460M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 289W | 50W-83% |
| Recommended PSU | 680W | 350W-49% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 267mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 95°C | 80°C-16% |
| Perf/Watt | 4.1 | 24.4+495% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 460M costs 20% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 24.0 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 30.4 (GeForce GTX 460M) — the GeForce GTX 460M offers 26.7% better value. The GeForce GTX 460M is the newer GPU (2010 vs 2009).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | GeForce GTX 460M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $499 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | $40-20% |
| Performance per Dollar | 24.0 | 30.4+27% |
| Codename | GT200B | GF106 |
| Release | January 8 2009 | September 3 2010 |
| Ranking | #816 | #814 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 295 and GeForce GTX 460M
